## Facts

- Joseph Lavaniegos tripped and fell over a utility-wire anchor embedded in a sidewalk.
- Lavaniegos sued Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company (Southern Bell), the utility company connected to the anchor, and the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), among others, seeking damages for his injuries.
- DOT owned and maintained the sidewalk where the anchor was embedded.
- Southern Bell did not file a crossclaim against DOT for contribution or indemnity.
- DOT moved for summary judgment on Lavaniegos’s claim, arguing Lavaniegos had produced no evidence showing DOT was liable for the injuries.
- The trial court granted DOT’s motion and entered summary judgment for DOT on Lavaniegos’s claim against DOT.
- Lavaniegos did not appeal the summary judgment in DOT’s favor.
- Southern Bell appealed, arguing that because DOT owned and maintained the sidewalk, DOT had responsibility to keep it clear of obstructions and should bear at least some liability for Lavaniegos’s injuries.

## Issues

1. When the injured plaintiff does not appeal a summary judgment entered for one defendant, may a remaining co-defendant appeal that summary judgment based only on arguments about the dismissed defendant’s duty to the plaintiff?
2. Does a co-defendant have an appealable interest in a co-defendant’s dismissal where the appellant asserted no crossclaim for contribution or indemnity against the dismissed party?

## Decision

- The appellate court dismissed Southern Bell’s appeal for lack of appellate standing, leaving the summary judgment for DOT in place.
- The court reasoned that the summary judgment resolved only Lavaniegos’s claim against DOT, and Lavaniegos—whose claim was dismissed—chose not to seek appellate review.
- Because Southern Bell had not asserted any crossclaim (such as contribution or indemnity) against DOT, the judgment did not determine any claim or right belonging to Southern Bell.

## Legal Principles

- Only a party whose own rights are directly and adversely affected by a judgment may appeal that judgment.
- A defendant generally may not appeal a ruling that is adverse only to the plaintiff, where the plaintiff declines to appeal.
- A co-defendant’s desire to keep another defendant in the case to share fault or damages is not, by itself, an appealable injury.
- To preserve a right to shift or share liability with a co-defendant, a defendant must plead an appropriate crossclaim (for example, contribution or indemnity); without such a claim, the defendant lacks an independent basis to challenge the co-defendant’s dismissal.

## Conclusion

Because the summary judgment adjudicated only Lavaniegos’s claim against DOT and Lavaniegos did not appeal, and because Southern Bell had not asserted any crossclaim against DOT, Southern Bell lacked an independent, appealable interest; the appellate court therefore declined review and left DOT’s summary judgment intact.


Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Florida Department of Transportation, 668 So. 2d 1039 (1996)